|
Here's something I wrote on Reddit, regarding the Baneling nerf.
The reason Baneling HP was increased, was specifically to nerf the ByuN target fire. It's more fun to watch splits than shooting down the Banelings. Furthermore LotV economy is not the same as HotS economy, in HotS economy Banelings without the presence of Widow Mines would've been too strong. In LotV however the economy is low, which favours the Terran army, since it gets more cost efficient in lower army skirmishes, due to micro capabilities.
Now to start of they gave the Baneling the 40 hp directly and not through the upgrade, but they decided to put it on top of Centrifugal Hook upgrade, because it would change ZvZ too much. In ZvZ 40 hp Banes, makes it so it takes 3 Banelings to kill an enemy Baneling, because of the instant 1 hp regeneration. Now with 35 hp Banelings, they can easily go back to just making the Baneling a 35 hp unit from the start. It would be both easier to remember because the Zergling also has 35 hp and there doesn't have to be this weird secondary benefit to the Centrifugal Hooks upgrade.
Make Banelings 35 hp from the start, but also take note that the reason Zerg does better in standard compositions in the current balance is also partly because of much bigger maps overall.
I think Hydras should be pushed back into the meta by buffing the Lurker vs Bio compositions. Increase Lurker damage to 30 vs all, instead of 20+10vs Armoured. It makes it so it 2 shots Marines which is a must if we want to see cool stuff like going Mutalisks vs Terran and then defending with Lurkers. To compensate you can lower the travel speed of spikes a little, so it promotes micro from both players more.
I think Burrow Fungal does not belong in this game, it will heavily reduce the action in matches. I think Burrow Neural is a fantastic change so, so this experiment is not all for naught. If you want Burrow Fungal you should really change how it works, once you're Burrowed. Like 0 range, or in other words, if you press 'F' while holding the Infestor, it Fungals the area directly above the ground of where the Infestor is. I think one of the most exciting things from huge Fungals was when they suddenly pop up from the ground and the opponent realizes at this moment that his chances are lost. The effect of the Infestor poppin' up from the ground was super powerful.
|
Interceptor should be reverted to 25 minerals. Carriers are ridiculous atm.
|
GreaT! banes was to hard to handle if you wherent Korean! now just bring back Tankivacs so tanks actually are usefull again, besides camping which is boring and destroyin this game.
Microing tanks and dodge ravagers bile takes skill and finesse. WHy take away something thats so micro intensive? BRING TANKIVAC BACK PLEASE. tanks has no use in currenct patch tvz tvp if you play bio
|
On December 16 2016 19:20 avilo wrote:
Interceptor should be reverted to 25 minerals. Carriers are ridiculous atm.
Did you learn from the Innovation games how to play mech without turtling to mass Ravens and use actual timings? 
|
On December 16 2016 19:27 MiCroLiFe wrote:
GreaT! banes was to hard to handle if you wherent Korean! now just bring back Tankivacs so tanks actually are usefull again, besides camping which is boring and destroyin this game.
Microing tanks and dodge ravagers bile takes skill and finesse. WHy take away something thats so micro intensive? BRING TANKIVAC BACK PLEASE. tanks has no use in currenct patch tvz tvp if you play bio
Tancivacs should definitely NOT come back, I wouldn't mind sieged tanks to be able to be picked up again tho (and then unsiege inside the medivac)
|
Personally, I question the decision to reduce interceptors to 5 minerals. I don't think it's a good idea to make such a drastic change. I mean, if you're going to reduce cost by 90%, then you better nerf it slightly in some other ways. Like increasing the build time as well, so that the buff isn't so gigantic.
Same thing as infestor. It has always been a relevant unit. If you're going to make it cast-able while burrow, then nerf it in some way at the same time, like reducing the AOE, increasing cost, etc.
|
On December 16 2016 07:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A reason was never given for the baneling upgrade in the first place. So neither can they have questioned the implication of a nerf to the upgrade or a full revert.
The reason was is that buffing Tanks damage would help them considerably versus Banelings.
It is one of the side effects of buffing Tanks that I discussed during the HOTS Beta and listed it as a change that would be necessary if you buff Tanks damage.
|
It seems like in about 6 mos. we'll have everything back to LOTV release stats except Swarm Hosts will do +2 bonus damage to armored units or something.
|
Pretty funny patch.
Interceptor cost is really bad way of changing carriers. It only moves the boundary between "not worth the risk of turtling into" and "easy turtle for easy win". It changes nothing about how strong carriers are when you get enough of them, which has to be addressed for the unit to be used in good games. If they want to really make them good start with Snute's suggestions or here are other options.
Baneling nerf came out of nowhere and is not necessary.
And despite them wanting to move "pretty quickly" we are still not testing changes to hydras.
|
On December 16 2016 22:11 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 07:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
A reason was never given for the baneling upgrade in the first place. So neither can they have questioned the implication of a nerf to the upgrade or a full revert. The reason was is that buffing Tanks damage would help them considerably versus Banelings. It is one of the side effects of buffing Tanks that I discussed during the HOTS Beta and listed it as a change that would be necessary if you buff Tanks damage.
Tanks are actually worse vs banelings than before the patch. 35 damage tanks took 1 shot to kill 30 hp banelings in the full damage radius, 2 shots in the half damage radius, and 4 shots in the 1/4 damage radius. 40 damage tanks take 1 shot, 2 shots, and 5 shots (because of regen) respectively, and they shoot slightly slower than before.
|
On December 16 2016 22:18 Tuczniak wrote:
Pretty funny patch.
Interceptor cost is really bad way of changing carriers. It only moves the boundary between "not worth the risk of turtling into" and "easy turtle for easy win". It changes nothing about how strong carriers are when you get enough of them, which has to be addressed for the unit to be used in good games. .
[/url]
I disagree with this. In SC2 we are used to having a "balanced" answer to any unit being massed at any time. Full 200supply of carriers should be countered by x. I think this is wrong as it leads to boring games as no matter what the enemy is doing, you can always, especially as Zerg, bring the perfect counter, and so the "timings" game gets lost and the "one big fight" gets promoted. This is especially problematic against Protoss and Terran mech.
Transitioning to Carriers, building and rebuilding interceptors, etc is a really cool dinaminc IMO for a counter. Taking advantage of the weakness of what a full Carrier transition means is what makes games fun IMO, and not 200 vs200 10seconds fights.
The almost free interceptos were and are a bad idea IMO because you can no longer starve a P player that uses Carriers but are forced to bring the "counter" to kill them cost efficiently.
|
cloud should be removed or nerfed even more because mech still bad
|
On December 16 2016 23:19 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 22:18 Tuczniak wrote:
Pretty funny patch.
Interceptor cost is really bad way of changing carriers. It only moves the boundary between "not worth the risk of turtling into" and "easy turtle for easy win". It changes nothing about how strong carriers are when you get enough of them, which has to be addressed for the unit to be used in good games. .
I disagree with this. In SC2 we are used to having a "balanced" answer to any unit being massed at any time. Full 200supply of carriers should be countered by x. I think this is wrong as it leads to boring games as no matter what the enemy is doing, you can always, especially as Zerg, bring the perfect counter, and so the "timings" game gets lost and the "one big fight" gets promoted. This is especially problematic against Protoss and Terran mech. Transitioning to Carriers, building and rebuilding interceptors, etc is a really cool dinaminc IMO for a counter. Taking advantage of the weakness of what a full Carrier transition means is what makes games fun IMO, and not 200 vs200 10seconds fights. The almost free interceptos were and are a bad idea IMO because you can no longer starve a P player that uses Carriers but are forced to bring the "counter" to kill them cost efficiently. [/url]
Of course we dont want one 10 sec fight but this has nothign to do with what he is talking about. The game would be the most fun if it would be worth to mix in like 4 carriers because they have a specific role, instead of massing carriers and making it hard for the opponent to do anything.
For most players it is no fun to try to win the game before it is impossible (sure it is possible but the chances are low).
Take for example tvp in HotS. That was definetly no fun for both sides from the midgame on (which lead to scv timing win or fail).
|
looks like all those guys predicting a big BC nerf were correct! good call guys!
keep insulting more people as you make these great projections because it just adds to your street cred!
|
For the Hydralisk, it’s still too early to make a call on where they have landed, but we have been getting feedback that they’re still strong in their current state.
What kind of game are they watching?
|
On December 17 2016 00:28 jackacea wrote:Show nested quote +
For the Hydralisk, it’s still too early to make a call on where they have landed, but we have been getting feedback that they’re still strong in their current state.
What kind of game are they watching?
Starcraft 2
|
a few months ago i stated that a once per week update was too much and that maybe once every two weeks would be best. i'd like to retract that request. i think once per week is better than once every 2 weeks especially with the game being reset.
|
The carrier change was expected (though i thought it would be a 15 minerals change), but the baneling nerf... I just dont see the need for it.
|
All of these constant changes are keeping me from wanting to play this game lol, i want to play the final incarnation of this balance patch not the in between where David is making everything that was underused imbalanced as fuck and then slowly dialing it down.
- Increase Interceptor cost to 25, Carriers are broken at the moment, as if Skytoss wasn't already teetering on OP or anything.
- Redesign Oracles to stop ending games outright
- Remove the Swarm Host from the game
- Change Blinding Cloud in a way that isn't half retarded (make it cut range by a set number so it doesn't hard counter tanks, how this eludes the "great" David Kim's balance team I have zero clue) because mech STILL sucks once Vipers hit the field
- Burrow Fungal is imbalanced, make the Infestor smaller and easier to use, increase projectile speed of Fungal, replace root with 50% slow.
- Buff the Stalker raw stats, make it hit harder, increase research time and cool down on Blink
- Replace noob charge with Zealot Legs so Protoss players can actually micro a real unit instead of casting spells
- Now that Force Field is underpowered, remove it, and replace it with Shield Battery along with a +1 armor increase to the sentries, turn it back into a front line combat support unit that encourages small engagements.
- Completely redesign the Raven to do no damage but to support and end the Raven cancer once and for all, a huge reason Mass Raven/Mass Infestor is because it's a unit that does damage for energy which means they scale better in large numbers (whats better then one seeker missile? 10 of course) which is bad. Make the Raven a powerful late game support unit that gives Terran some additional survivability in end game fights. maybe give it lock down so it can be used vs Ultralisks.
Oh, and the biggest one so far...
...Patch the game, wait for the meta to settle down...
|
United States752 Posts
On December 16 2016 08:42 Qwyn wrote:
I have not heard anyone complain about the baneling buff?! With 70 damage tanks and widow mines functioning the way they do, the main means by which Terran deal with banelings are as effective as always...
And in that regard widow mines are just as effective now against +10 hp baneling as they were before...And tanks now do 70 damage as well...
no tanks dont do 70 dmg to banelings because banes arn't armored tanks dmg is practically unchanged vs light units in the patch, its only slightly more. and its not enough to 1 shot banes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
